Mono County board upholds planning commission denial of June Lake short-term rental use permit

The Mono County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 on Feb. 18 to uphold a Planning Commission denial of a use permit for a short-term rental at 19 Willow Avenue in the Down Canyon area of June Lake, concluding a multi-hour public hearing that reviewed land‑use designations, neighborhood character and emergency access.

County Community Development Director Wendy Sugimura and Planning Analyst Erin Bauer presented the staff report and explained the legal and policy framework: the parcel is zoned “commercial lodging moderate,” but short-term rentals of single-family homes require discretionary review and, as of April 2024, a use permit subject to a public hearing. Staff also cited Policy 1.M.2 of the Mono County General Plan (the “sharing economy” policy) and county short‑term rental rules (Chapter 25/26) as central to the decision.

The applicant, Colin Poe, said he built the 1,500‑square‑foot house with the intent to operate as nightly lodging, described the property as high‑quality construction and said he had organized management, snow‑removal and trash services. Public commenters who opposed the permit cited emergency access concerns on the narrow Aspen/Willow corridor, the loss of potential long‑term housing and neighborhood impacts. One commenter asked the board to impose conditions if it approved the permit.

Planning staff told the board the Planning Commission found the application failed to meet Finding 3 required for a use permit — that the proposed use “will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area.” Staff and the Planning Commission cited the county’s stated goal of protecting limited residential housing stock for long‑term occupancy in areas closely adjacent to single‑family homes. Staff emphasized the distinction between a building permit (ministerial) and the later, discretionary land‑use approvals required to operate a structure as commercial lodging.

Supervisors debated whether the parcel’s commercial‑lodging zoning and the applicant’s stated intent to build a small lodge weighed in favor of approval, or whether the parcel’s proximity to single‑family residences, narrow access and county policy preferring “sharing” over purpose‑built business rentals counseled denial. Supervisor Crites moved to uphold the Planning Commission; Supervisor McFarland seconded. The roll call recorded Peters: No; Dugan: Yes; Chair Salcedo: No; McFarland: Yes; Crites: Yes. The motion to uphold the denial passed 3–2.

Because the Planning Commission’s decision was upheld, the applicant’s appeal was denied. The board and staff discussed that, should an approval be sought in the future, the matter would likely require additional conditions at the use‑permit stage and then an annual short‑term rental activity permit — a separate operational permit staff said is typically required if the board approves a use permit.

Board members and staff encouraged the applicant to work with Community Development if the project is changed or expanded into a formal commercial lodging proposal (for which the building code and accessibility and snow‑storage requirements differ from single‑family residential construction). The board also noted ongoing community concerns about enforcement capacity for operational issues and emergency access in Down Canyon.

The board closed the public hearing and directed staff and the applicant on next steps consistent with the Planning Commission’s denial.

Ending: The board’s action preserves the Planning Commission’s finding that the use permit did not meet the county’s Finding 3. The applicant may revise the project and work with staff on next steps; county staff said it will provide guidance but cannot guarantee outcomes absent a new or amended application.